MATTHEWS v. CITY OF WEST POINT, 1:10cv286-SA-DAS. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20120327753
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment [50, 52, 55, 59] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (2) The Motion for Summary Judgment [52] as to Plaintiff Dubois is DENIED in its entirety; (3) The Motion for Summary Judgment [50] as to Plaintiff Campbell is DENIED in its entirety; (4) The Motion for Summary Judgment [59] as to Plaintiff Mathews is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
Summary: ORDER SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge. Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment [50, 52, 55, 59] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (2) The Motion for Summary Judgment [52] as to Plaintiff Dubois is DENIED in its entirety; (3) The Motion for Summary Judgment [50] as to Plaintiff Campbell is DENIED in its entirety; (4) The Motion for Summary Judgment [59] as to Plaintiff Mathews is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: ..
More
ORDER
SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.
Pursuant to an opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that
(1) Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment [50, 52, 55, 59] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;
(2) The Motion for Summary Judgment [52] as to Plaintiff Dubois is DENIED in its entirety;
(3) The Motion for Summary Judgment [50] as to Plaintiff Campbell is DENIED in its entirety;
(4) The Motion for Summary Judgment [59] as to Plaintiff Mathews is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
a. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff Matthews' Title VII retaliation claims for demotion and suspension/termination;
b. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff Matthews' Section 1981 retaliation claim based on his alleged demotion brought pursuant to Section 1983;
c. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Matthews' Section 1981 retaliation claim based on his suspension/termination brought pursuant to Section 1983;
d. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Matthews' retaliation claims based on his alleged demotion and suspension/termination brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to Section 1983;
(5) The Motion for Summary Judgment [55] as to Plaintiff Anderson is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
a. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff Anderson's Title VII retaliation claim;
b. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff Anderson's Section 1981 retaliation claim brought pursuant to Section 1983;
c. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Anderson's retaliation claim based on his alleged demotion brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to Section 1983.
So ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
